GOP pushing anti-abortion bill that can threaten the lives of pregnent women

[woolfe9999]

I just used Huffpo's "correction" option to do so. We'll see if anything happens to it. Probably not, it's too good a piece of Propaganda.

I suggest you read my post above yours before sending any further e-mails and making an ass of yourself.

 

[irishScott]

LOL at the circle jerk following EK's fallacious post. None of you guys has spotted that the language he quotes is addressing an entirely different issue than what is discussed in the HufPo article? The HufPo article is saying that the act allows hospitals that received Medicare/Medicaid to refuse to either a) provide an abortion, or b) transfer the patient to a hospital that will perform an abortion, when the life of the mother is threatened.

EK's quoted language is saying that health plans subsidized by the government under the Obamacare law cannot pay for abortion services, except in cases of rape, incest or mortal danger to the mother. Does anyone not understand this rather simple and clear distinction?

Oops.

Evidentally, this is the language in the bill that the article is referring to:



As I read this, indeed, no healthcare institution is required to provide an abortion or make a referral under any circumstances, no exception.

For the comprehensionally challenged: EK's quote has to do with what subsidized healthplans can and cannot cover. The Hufpo article is addressing the issue of whether hospitals getting Medicare/Medicaid can refuse to perform abortions or give referrals.

Huffpo's description is exactly correct.

- wolf

Ah alright, so it is a stupid bill that probably won't go anywhere, and given that it's only 12 pages more people will read it. Sweet.

 

[irishScott]

I suggest you read my post above yours before sending any further e-mails and making an ass of yourself.

I don't care if some random HuffPost columnist thinks I'm an ass.

 

[dank69]

LOL at the circle jerk following EK's fallacious post. None of you guys has spotted that the language he quotes is addressing an entirely different issue than what is discussed in the HufPo article? The HufPo article is saying that the act allows hospitals that received Medicare/Medicaid to refuse to either a) provide an abortion, or b) transfer the patient to a hospital that will perform an abortion, when the life of the mother is threatened.

EK's quoted language is saying that health plans subsidized by the government under the Obamacare law cannot pay for abortion services, except in cases of rape, incest or mortal danger to the mother. Does anyone not understand this rather simple and clear distinction?

Oops.

Evidentally, this is the language in the bill that the article is referring to:



As I read this, indeed, no healthcare institution is required to provide an abortion or make a referral under any circumstances, no exception.

For the comprehensionally challenged: EK's quote has to do with what subsidized healthplans can and cannot cover. The Hufpo article is addressing the issue of whether hospitals getting Medicare/Medicaid can refuse to perform abortions or give referrals.

Huffpo's description is exactly correct.

- wolf

lol nice job wolf :awe:

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't care if some random HuffPost columnist thinks I'm an ass.

I was more referring to making a further ass of yourself here on ATP&N, to which I'm sure you'll respond that you don't care if anyone here thinks you're an ass either.

Be that as it may, it blows my mind that a bunch of people basically me tooed EK's post and hurled insults at Hufpo and the OP when EK's error was spottable just by reading his post. You guys didn't even need to read the statute. The OP article is talking about one thing, and EK's quoted language is clearly talking about another.

Face it, people tend to instantaneously credit whatever suits their preconceptions, not only without any fact checking, but without giving it any thought whatsoever.

- wolf

 

[irishScott]

I was more referring to making a further ass of yourself here on ATP&N, to which I'm sure you'll respond that you don't care if anyone here thinks you're an ass either.

Be that as it may, it blows my mind that a bunch of people basically me tooed EK's post and hurled insults at Hufpo and the OP when EK's error was spottable just by reading his post. You guys didn't even need to read the statute. The OP article is talking about one thing, and EK's quoted language is clearly talking about another.

Face it, people tend to instantaneously credit whatever suits their preconceptions, not only without any fact checking, but without giving it any thought whatsoever.

- wolf

Well maybe if Huffpost actually quoted or cited the language it was talking about we would have seen that right off the bat. As it was, this is the only info Huffpost actually provides about the Bill, the rest is basically a weak rant about Catholic Hospitals:

WASHINGTON -- The House is scheduled to vote this week on a new bill that would allow federally-funded hospitals that oppose abortions to refuse to perform the procedure, even in cases where a woman would die without it.

Under current law, every hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid money is legally required to provide emergency care to any patient in need, regardless of his or her financial situation. If a hospital is unable to provide what the patient needs -- including a life-saving abortion -- it has to transfer the patient to a hospital that can.

Under H.R. 358, dubbed the "Protect Life Act" and sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), hospitals that don't want to provide abortions could refuse to do so, even for a pregnant woman with a life-threatening complication that requires a doctor terminate her pregnancy.

So EK and company read through the bill and discover a clause that seems to directly countermand the claim. Why should we read the rest? Yes it was false, but if HuffPost had so much as added "Section 2, subsection g" to the opening sentence of the 3rd paragraph it would have eliminated any confusion.

I'll agree that people tend to instantaneously credit whatever suits their preconceptions, but HuffPost could have eliminated that very easily if they had cited proper sources.

 

[woolfe9999]

Well maybe if Huffpost actually quoted or cited the language it was talking about we would have seen that right off the bat. As it was, this is the only info Huffpost actually provides about the Bill, the rest is basically a weak rant about Catholic Hospitals:


So EK and company read through the bill and discover a clause that seems to directly countermand the claim. Why should we read the rest? Yes it was false, but if HuffPost had so much as added "Section 2, subsection g" to the opening sentence of the 3rd paragraph it would have eliminated any confusion.

I'll agree that people tend to instantaneously credit whatever suits their preconceptions, but HuffPost could have eliminated that very easily if they had cited proper sources.

As a rule, news articles don't quote statutes much. They only do when there is a convenient sound bite, meaning that the relevant language is short and easily digested. As you can see from the whole section I provided, no news publication would have quoted that. They would just have explained its effect which is what Hufpo did.

I do wish news pieces discussing legislation would actually provide a link to the statutes themselves, but they never seem to do it. Hufpo BTW is actually better at linking primary sources than most. For example, when they have an article discussing a poll, they usually link to the actual poll while you won't find one in other articles discussing the same poll.

As for EK's clause "seeming to directly contradict the article" that is where I have a problem. EK's error is apparent between the face of what he quoted and Homer's quotations from the Hufpo article. You didn't even need to click a link to see that they were talking about two different things. But EK's error, which I believe wasn't intentional, is one thing. A bunch of people not seeing the obvious is another.

Honestly, even Faux News with its own slant doesn't flagrantly mistate legislation like this. They're more likely guilty of selection bias or other forms of spin. I can't see why no one was surprised that Hufpo would be this blatantly dishonest. Hufpo has a strong left slant, but they're not that bad on facts, generally.

- wolf

 

[Fern]

This looks like a situation primarily driven by the dilemma experienced by Catholic hospitals. Being forced to provide the abortion service, but then having the hospital administrator lose their job as a result is remarkably stupid (the latter term inadequately describes it I think). Forcing Catholics to change their religion is not an option.

But I'm not sure what the problem is:

Under current law, every hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid money is legally required to provide emergency care to any patient in need, regardless of his or her financial situation. If a hospital is unable to provide what the patient needs -- including a life-saving abortion -- it has to transfer the patient to a hospital that can.

Seems that current law already addresses this situation - just transfer the patient.

Assuming current law doesn't adequately cover it, we have two choices: (1) pass this bill to change the law, or (2) watch Catholic hospitals drop Medicaid patients. The latter strikes me as seriously undesirable because people on Medicaid already have trouble finding HC professionals who accept Medicaid.

I realize the pro-abortion anti-religion people will freak, but this strikes me as something in the best interest of lower income people relying on Medicaid.

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

This looks like a situation primarily driven by the dilemma experienced by Catholic hospitals. Being forced to provide the abortion service, but then having the hospital administrator lose their job as a result is remarkably stupid (the latter term inadequately describes it I think). Forcing Catholics to change their religion is not an option.

But I'm not sure what the problem is:




Seems that current law already addresses this situation - just transfer the patient.

Assuming current law doesn't adequately cover it, we have two choices: (1) pass this bill to change the law, or (2) watch Catholic hospitals drop Medicaid patients. The latter strikes me as seriously undesirable because people on Medicaid already have trouble finding HC professionals who accept Medicaid.

I realize the pro-abortion anti-religion people will freak, but this strikes me as something in the best interest of lower income people relying on Medicaid.

Fern

No, you're missing something. Current law says, if you take Medicare and/or Medicaid, when the life of the mother is threatened, you must either a) perform the abortion, or b) make a referral to a facility that does. That's what you quoted. This law is saying they don't have to make even the referral. This is relevant because those who are anti-abortion are generally loath to send patients off to get an abortion somewhere else. It isn't just that they won't perform it themselves.

So under this law, if a woman is in a life threatening situation, the hospital can say, "she'll die without an abortion, but we won't perform one." The husband then says, "well can you please transfer her to a facility that will perform one." The hospital: "sorry, we can't help you with that. We're anti-abortion. I'm sure we wouldn't know the first thing about doctors who perform this evil procedure. You can find a provider yourself and arrange for transportation. Too bad its an emergency. You'd better get busy."

As for Catholics being forced to do something against their religion, well they've been operating under the existing law for years now and they're still taking Medicaid. What is the point of this new law other than to just make it more difficult to get an abortion in a health emergency?

- wolf

 

[ElFenix]

LOL at the circle jerk following EK's fallacious post. None of you guys has spotted that the language he quotes is addressing an entirely different issue than what is discussed in the HufPo article?

see my post 10 minutes before yours

 

[Fern]

No, you're missing something. Current law says, if you take Medicare and/or Medicaid, when the life of the mother is threatened, you must either a) perform the abortion, or b) make a referral to a facility that does. That's what you quoted. This law is saying they don't have to make even the referral. This is relevant because those who are anti-abortion are generally loath to send patients off to get an abortion somewhere else. It isn't just that they won't perform it themselves.

So under this law, if a woman is in a life threatening situation, the hospital can say, "she'll die without an abortion, but we won't perform one." The husband then says, "well can you please transfer her to a facility that will perform one." The hospital: "sorry, we can't help you with that. We're anti-abortion. I'm sure we wouldn't know the first thing about doctors who perform this evil procedure. You can find a provider yourself and arrange for transportation. Too bad its an emergency. You'd better get busy."

As for Catholics being forced to do something against their religion, well they've been operating under the existing law for years now and they're still taking Medicaid.

No one else is citing the (supposed) problem that you claim. You're assuming the "referral" provision releases them from the responsibility to transfer the 'emergency' patient to a medical facility that can help them. I think it's a leap to assume that in life threatening cases the scenario you paint is permissible or would occur under this proposal.

However, if that is what is intended I would agree that it is intolerable. I just don't believe it so.

What is the point of this new law other than to just make it more difficult to get an abortion in a health emergency?

- wolf

I think it obvious given the info in the article. As I stated above:

we have two choices: (1) pass this bill to change the law, or (2) watch Catholic hospitals drop Medicaid patients. The latter strikes me as seriously undesirable because people on Medicaid already have trouble finding HC professionals who accept Medicaid.

I see no benefit whatsoever to forcing Catholic hospitals out as Medicaid providers. (Nor do I see how referrals as you see them are contrary to Catholicism, not that I would necessarily know the latter being a non-Catholic myself.)

Fern

 

[cubby1223]

I thought

That's yer problem right there. You think too much, especially when your thoughts do not reflect reality.

 

[Kadarin]

Anyone actually read the bill
Link

Unless I read the bill incorrectly; it looks like the Huff has taken this at gospel from somewhere else and may never actually read the bill.
The word in red seems to allow what they are complaining about with respect to Section (b)
If the life is in danger; they can not refuse..

Does anyone else read this differently - if so please explain

Funny thing about the exception in the bill for rape or incest:

16 health plan that includes coverage of abortion, ex-
17 cept—
18 ‘‘(A) if the pregnancy is the result of an act
19 of rape or incest; or

This means that it's no longer at all about "the sanctity of life", and in fact puts that whole concept into the realm of complete bullshit. If a fetus is considered a "human being", why should killing it be ok if it was the product of rape? It's not the child's fault.

The answer is that the act of rape was not consented by nor enjoyed by the woman, so therefore it's ok to abort the child. If, on the other hand, a woman chooses to consent to sex (and presumably enjoys it), the woman must therefore be obligated to deal with the consequences of that choice, be it having to raise a child or give it up for adoption.

It's the religious right wing's moral code where women should not be allowed to enjoy sex unless it's within a married relationship where they intend to raise families. Immoral sexuality is to be punished at all costs.

 

[a777pilot]

I thought Republicans were worried about jobs, jobs, jobs. Instead they are all about obstruction and taking time with this kind of stuff.





Those who would say that will never happen here is a real world example


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/11/protect-life-act-anti-abortion-bill_n_1005937.html

Sounds like a great idea to me. Freedom of action is a good thing. If one hospital or for that matter, an individual, does not want to participate in the act of abortion, why should they be forced to. That woman, that wants an abortion can find another place to kill her child.

If you worked at a state prison and were ordered to take part in an execution, wouldn't you like a law that allows you to opt out?

 

[Carmen813]

Sounds like a great idea to me. Freedom of action is a good thing. If one hospital or for that matter, an individual, does not want to participate in the act of abortion, why should they be forced to. That woman, that wants an abortion can find another place to kill her child.

If you worked at a state prison and were ordered to take part in an execution, wouldn't you like a law that allows you to opt out?

Unless of course you live in an area where there isn't another hospital or provider around that will perform the service.

As for the last part of your post, why eat apples when you can opt for oranges!

 

[RampantAndroid]

I thought Republicans were worried about jobs, jobs, jobs. Instead they are all about obstruction and taking time with this kind of stuff.





Those who would say that will never happen here is a real world example


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/11/protect-life-act-anti-abortion-bill_n_1005937.html

Err...I thought catholics were OK with abortions that were done to safe a life. And I went to catholic school from 4th grade through 12th...

Anyway, I agree with the idea that as a taxpayer I don't want to pay for it when it's just someone who wasn't careful, had a condom break or something. When it's a lifesaving procedure, it should be covered. Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-choice (and I'm a registered republican) and absolutely sick of abortion figuring into the debates ongoing right now. Can we move on already? Maybe get soldiers home? Resurrect our economy? Improve the school system? Improve living conditions? Etc etc etc...

 

[Kadarin]

Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-choice (and I'm a registered republican) and absolutely sick of abortion figuring into the debates ongoing right now. Can we move on already? Maybe get soldiers home? Resurrect our economy? Improve the school system? Improve living conditions? Etc etc etc...

The problem with that is that it would then take actual effort to put forth effective policies to do that (especially when your political party has no plans or ideas other than "tax breaks for the very rich"). Much easier to get elected on emotional wedge issues.

 

[woolfe9999]

No one else is citing the (supposed) problem that you claim. You're assuming the "referral" provision releases them from the responsibility to transfer the 'emergency' patient to a medical facility that can help them. I think it's a leap to assume that in life threatening cases the scenario you paint is permissible or would occur under this proposal.

However, if that is what is intended I would agree that it is intolerable. I just don't believe it so.




I think it obvious given the info in the article. As I stated above:



I see no benefit whatsoever to forcing Catholic hospitals out as Medicaid providers. (Nor do I see how referrals as you see them are contrary to Catholicism, not that I would necessarily know the latter being a non-Catholic myself.)

Fern

If they're not objecting to making the referral, then why is existing law "forcing Catholic hospitals out as Medicaid providers?" The existing law gives them a choice to make the referral. You're not making sense.

The idea that they object to the referral seems like common sense to me. If you think abortion is murder, you aren't going to want to facillitate it.

The rest of your post is speculating that they'll make the referral anyway even if it isn't required by law. If they really don't mind and are going to do it anyway, then this law is pointless. If the law has any meaning, it is freeing them from having to do something that they in fact do not want to do, and will not do, at least in some cases.

- wolf

 

[actuarial]

Sounds like a great idea to me. Freedom of action is a good thing. If one hospital or for that matter, an individual, does not want to participate in the act of abortion, why should they be forced to. That woman, that wants an abortion can find another place to kill her child.

If you worked at a state prison and were ordered to take part in an execution, wouldn't you like a law that allows you to opt out?

If a doctor were to watch a mother and child die when they could instead save the mother, that person should not be a doctor.

IMO if they were charged with caring for the person, especially in an emergency situation, that's very close to negligent homicide.

If a JW is the only doctor on staff, can they refuse a life saving blood transfusion? Can a Muslim stop CPR compressions to pray?

 

[actuarial]

No one else is citing the (supposed) problem that you claim. You're assuming the "referral" provision releases them from the responsibility to transfer the 'emergency' patient to a medical facility that can help them. I think it's a leap to assume that in life threatening cases the scenario you paint is permissible or would occur under this proposal.

However, if that is what is intended I would agree that it is intolerable. I just don't believe it so.

The law specifically states that an entity cannot be discriminated against if they refuse to refer for an abortion. It makes no mention of emergency situations.

 

[Moonbeam]

Women are very tricky. They pretend to be dying to get an abortion. Sometimes they even stab themselves or jump out of windows. These filthy bitches have to be stopped from gaming the system and Republicans have the will to do it, even if the American people are focused on jobs and not these issues where abortion isn't federally funded.

Allowing cunning women to kill their children by pretending to be dying comes first over everything. This kind of stuff riles up the base and causes them to donate to the party that works for out Savior. We need the money and votes to acquire dominion over the land. And hopefully, the unemployed will not have time to vote or notice what we are doing. Also we have to control the news cycle so that no attention is payed to the 99%ers. Those folks represent a real danger. If you march against America you should lose your right to vote.

 

[wetech]

No, you're missing something. Current law says, if you take Medicare and/or Medicaid, when the life of the mother is threatened, you must either a) perform the abortion, or b) make a referral to a facility that does. That's what you quoted. This law is saying they don't have to make even the referral. This is relevant because those who are anti-abortion are generally loath to send patients off to get an abortion somewhere else. It isn't just that they won't perform it themselves.

- wolf

That isn't what the law is stating. The law is stating that the gov't or agencies receiving gov't aid can't discriminate against hospitals / doctors that refuse to provide an abortion or referal for one. The law says nothing of the obligations of the healthcare providers themselves.

Nondiscrimination on Abortion-

‘(1) NONDISCRIMINATION- A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, or require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity refuses to--

‘(A) undergo training in the performance of induced abortions;

‘(B) require or provide such training;

‘(C) perform, participate in, provide coverage of, or pay for induced abortions; or

‘(D) provide referrals for such training or such abortions.

 

[actuarial]

That isn't what the law is stating. The law is stating that the gov't or agencies receiving gov't aid can't discriminate against hospitals / doctors that refuse to provide an abortion or referal for one. The law says nothing of the obligations of the healthcare providers themselves.

So what does discriminate in this sense mean then?

 

[a777pilot]

If a doctor were to watch a mother and child die when they could instead save the mother, that person should not be a doctor.

IMO if they were charged with caring for the person, especially in an emergency situation, that's very close to negligent homicide.

If a JW is the only doctor on staff, can they refuse a life saving blood transfusion? Can a Muslim stop CPR compressions to pray?

So you are saying to let a mother and child die is homicide? Great. I agree. Why not save the child vice the mother?

 

[Thump553]

For a party that campaigned on "jobs, jobs, jobs" the GOP sure seems to be into social engineering. This is the seventh abortion restricting bill they passed this year-while having yet to do anything at all regarding job creation (except attack anything Obama presents).